Torah Table Talk

Where's the Justice in an 'Eye for an Eye'?

Parshat Emor
Leviticus 21:1-24:23

Parshat Emor covers a variety of different topics including laws of marriage for the Kohanim, the priests, the holiday cycle and the penalty for blasphemy. It concludes with a passage which discusses the penalty for someone who injures or kills another person. This is one of a few places in the Bible where the expression, "an eye for an eye" appears. But what does this expression mean? Is it to be understood literally or otherwise? How are we to interpret statements in the Bible which appear to be at odds with our understanding of Ethics and morality in our own generation?

Leviticus 24: 17-22

17. And he who kills any man shall surely be put to death. 18. And he who kills a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19. And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him; 20. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done back to him. 21. And he who kills a beast, he shall restore it; and he who kills a man, he shall be put to death. 22. You shall have one kind of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your God.

Read these verses carefully. Is there any reason to understand the expression 'an eye for an eye' as anything other than the literal meaning of the verses?

Based on the verses, is there any reason to take the expression literally?

What does the final verse add to our understanding of this passage?

Why is it important to tell us here that there is 'one kind of law' for everyone in society?

What might be the reason for such a harsh law?

Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 84a

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai stated: "Eye for eye means money. You say money but perhaps it means, literally, an eye? In that case if a blind man blinded another, or a cripple maimed another, how would I be able to give an eye for an eye literally? Yet the Torah states, 'One law there shall be for you,' a law that is equitable for all of you'. It was taught in the school of Hezekiah: 'Eye for eye, life for life,' and not a life and an eye for a life: for should you imagine it is literally meant, it would sometimes happen that an eye and a life would be taken for an eye, for in the process of blinding him he might die."

Why does Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai reject the literally interpretation of this verse?

Why would it be impossible for a blind or a maimed person who is injured to receive an equitable judgment by maiming or blinding another person?

How does the court system insure equality of judgment in cases involving damages to another?

What implications might this explanation have for other inequalities such as race and economic status?

What does the school of Hezekiah add as an additional argument against the literal interpretation of this passage?

The JPS Torah Commentary, Leviticus, Baruch Levine

The point is that in a system that recognizes both retaliation and compensation and employs both modes of punishment selectively, which kind of penalty applies is a matter to be determined case by case. Thus, if an injury to a slave is punished by compensation, we may deduce that a similar injury to a free Israelite could not be compensated or else the text would clearly state as much. It is reasonable to conclude that the law of the Torah was severe in the area of bodily injuries inflicted intentionally by one Israelite on another. Later Jewish authorities thought that mutilation was unconscionable as a punishment

What can we conclude from the Bible law and the sages' reinterpretation of this law based on Dr. Levine's explanation.

What gave the sages the right to reinterpret this law in such a radically different way from its original intent? Is it possible to explain the text in a non literal fashion and yet remain faithful to the Biblical tradition at the same time?

Can you think of other areas of Jewish law where such a rereading of the Bible should be carried out?

How could the sages change the intent of the Bible if they believed that it is the world of God?

The JPS Torah Commentary, on Exodus 21:22-25 Nachum Sarna,

'The clear implication is that monetary compensation was the usual practice in respect of other nonfatal physical assaults'. Biblical law accepted the principle that assault and battery are public crimes and not simply private wrongs. However, it instituted monetary compensation not retaliation for bodily injury. It also insisted on equal justice for all citizens. And it outlawed vicarious punishment.

How are Sarna and Levine interpretation of the law of Lex Talionas different from one another?

According to Sarna, why did Hamurabi and the Torah frame these statements as a punishment and penalty rather than restitution?

What biblical principle leads him to assume that it must actually mean compensation?

	How to use Torah Table Talk

1.	Read the sheet out loud to one another. Discuss what it has to say.
2.	Focus on the text in the box. It is taken from Biblical, post-biblical and modern Jewish sources. What does it mean? How does it make you feel?
3.	Try to answer the questions following the text.
4.	This is not a test and there are many correct answers and interpretations to each question. Share your ideas with one another. Be open and honest in sharing your ideas.

	All it takes to study Torah is an open heart, a curious mind and a desire to grow a Jewish soul.

	Copyright 2004: Rabbi Mark B Greenspan